CAN FORESIGHT STUDIES STRENGTHEN STRATEGIC …...CAN FORESIGHT STUDIES STRENGTHEN STRATEGIC PLANNING...

CAN FORESIGHT STUDIES STRENGTHEN STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESSES AT THE URBAN AND REGIONAL LEVEL?

José Miguel Fernández Güell

Affiliation: Architect and Urban Planner, Professor of Urban and Regional Planning at the

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Member of the UPM Sustainable Architecture and

Urbanism Research Group (GIAU+S)

Address: Departamento de Urbanística y Ordenación del Territorio - Escuela Técnica

Superior de Arquitectura - Avenida Juan de Herrera, 4 – 28040 Madrid – Spain

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Foresight initially arose to make provisions for the future in science and

technology, however now it is beginning to be used in issues linked directly or

indirectly to the territory such as climate change, urban development and

transport. The present paper explores the opportunities provided by foresight to

complement and reinforce strategic planning processes at the urban and regional

level. For this purpose, a scenario design method is developed and adapted to

the requirements of territorial planning. Based on recent foresight studies

conducted by the author in Spain, results show the conceptual and operative

opportunities provided by territorial foresight as well as its current shortcomings

for application in the urban and regional planning field.

Keywords: Foresight, futures studies, scenario design, urban planning, strategic

planning.

Can futures studies strengthen strategic planning processes at the urban and regional level?

2

Futures studies in the urban and regional planning field

Since its origins in the 19th Century and its full development in the 20

th century,

urban and regional planning has encountered serious difficulties, many of them

provoked by its historic and socio-cultural contexts. Nevertheless, the main

difficulties, namely the complexity of socio-economic processes, the diversity of

local agents, and the future uncertainty of urban evolution, have remained

unchanged over time.

In the light of these three basic difficulties, special attention is paid in this paper

to the constant uncertainty regarding the future evolution of most urban

development processes. Every single planner faced with the arduous task of

foreseeing the future of a city in a 15 or 20 year time horizon has probably been

anxious about the technical limitations of forecasting tools. If the planner has

worked in a changing, turbulent environment, his anxiety will probably have

been even greater.

Historically, one of the main aims of the planning profession has been to foresee

the future of cities and regions. In fact, planning used to be about taking

decisions in the present time to steer urban development so as to improve a

community’s future quality of life. However, futures studies have almost been

abandoned by the planning profession, as reported by several scholars in the last

few decades (Isserman, 1985; Wachs, 2001). The reason for this trend can be

explained in the following terms.

In the 1950s and 1960s, urban planning projections were relatively reliable and

widely used because of the period's inherent socio-economic stability.

However, since the early 1970s, growing geopolitical instability and economic

changes started to produce gross mistakes in planning projections, supported by

highly sophisticated mathematical models. The continuous non-fulfilment of

long-term future predictions gave rise to a general discredit of urban analysts

and put most simulation models in quarantine. It was commonly believed

impossible to explain large, complex urban phenomena on the basis of scientific

laws and regularities.

In the 1990s, this situation became further aggravated because of substantial

changes in demographic structures, swift advances in the globalisation process

and disruptive technological innovations. Nowadays, the major issue seems to

be the speed of contemporary changes, their difficult acceptance by the largest

social groups, and their non-linear patterns. Unsurprisingly, most historical

paradigms have become obsolete and traditional urban frameworks appear to be

useless. Faced with this situation, the urban analyst is faced with serious

difficulties in foreseeing the future; in fact, the future in urban planning has

become a volatile issue.


3

According to Isserman (1985), planning has voluntarily sacrificed its visionary

and idealist role and has abandoned its responsibility as a source of inspiration

and ideas for what might be and what ought to be. This neglect of the future has

several causes: (i) planning’s orientation toward the social sciences and

scientific method, and away from architecture and design; (ii) budget cuts and a

climate that make idealism, vision, and inspiration seem anachronistic; (iii) the

pressure of daily job requirements; and (iv) our scepticism and lack of

confidence in our ability to think meaningfully about the future and to effect

change.

Despite the decline of futures studies in traditional urban planning processes,

they have found a place in new approaches such as strategic planning,

developed in the 1980s for the purpose of transferring private sector planning

methods and analytical tools to the urban arena. Strategic urban planning can

be defined as a systematic, creative, participatory process that sets the basis for

long-term integrated action, which defines the future development model,

formulates strategies and courses of action to achieve this model, establishes an

ongoing decision-making process and involves the local agents throughout the

entire process (Fernández Güell, 2006). Therefore, implicit to the strategic plan

definition is the need to formulate a future development model for the city,

backed by a strategic vision. More recently, there have been several attempts to

apply foresight studies to the urban and regional planning field, as set out

below.

In brief, common sense seems to tell us that future studies should play a central

role in urban and regional planning processes, or at least in strategic planning.

However, there seem to be strong technical and ideological barriers which

hinder urban planners from applying these tools. Given these premises, two

central questions arise: Do we have articulate, reliable tools to perform futures

studies in the urban and regional planning field? If they exist, can these tools

help us to strengthen our planning processes?

In order to answer both questions, this paper presents a qualitative and user-

friendly foresight method, adapted to urban and territorial planning contexts.

The method has been applied in national, regional and local foresight exercises.

Results allow us to test the method’s resilience with decision-makers, identify

major shortcomings and propose new improvements.

Methods and tools for futures studies

Nowadays, despite numerous and significant advances, it is still difficult to

distinguish rigorous futures studies from plain science fiction exercises. This

difficulty is due to the need of improving existing tools and develop new ones.


4

Nevertheless, there is an ample array of methods and tools which enable us to

undertake futures studies in almost every field of knowledge.

There are different ways of classifying future methods (Armstrong, 2001;

Barbieri, 1993; Jantsch, 1967), but for didactic purposes it is particularly useful

to distinguish them as quantitative and qualitative methods. The main strengths

and weaknesses of the best known methods and some of the complementary

tools (Figure 1) are explained below.

• Extrapolation of time series•Probabilistic forecasting

• Stochastic processes analysis• Regression analysis • Econometric models• Simulation modelling

• System dynamics• Cross-impact analysis• Cost-benefit analysis

• Input – output analysis• Game theory

Quantitative Methods Qualitative Methods

Complementary Tools

• Opinion surveys• Experts interviews

• Focus groups / Expert panels• Delphi method

• Scenario design• Iterative synopsis• Relevance trees

• Morphological analysis• Catastrophe theory• Historical analogy

• Incasting and Backcasting• Visioning

• Critical technologies• SWOT analysis

• Environmental scanning• Brainstorming

• Mind mapping• Benchmarking

Figure 1: Futures studies methods

a) Quantitative methods. This group corresponds to methods which carry out

future predictions based on mathematical and statistical data treatment. These

methods require numerical data about past and present situations, and use highly

complex or simple algorithms. Objectivity is their main strength.

Major advantages:

1. Information can be handled in consistent and reproducible ways,

combining figures and comparing data.

2. Changes in scale and ratio can be examined.

3. Data is organised systematically to produce trend extrapolations and

other forecasts.

4. Results are displayed in the form of tables, graphs and charts, which

facilitate communication.

Major limitations of quantitative methods:

1. They scarcely consider social and political variables.


5

2. Some urban phenomena are difficult to quantify.

3. Not everyone can work comfortably with statistical information.

4. Good quality data are often not available, or not sufficiently up-to-

date.

5. Some methods are highly complex and difficult to use.

Quantitative methods are particularly effective when there is continuity between

past, present and future situations, when information is available about past and

present conditions, and when short and medium-term projections are required.

b) Qualitative methods. Under these methods, future predictions are based on

intuitions and opinions of experts who posses reliable information and expertise

about a specific issue. Subjectivity is their main value.

Major advantages of qualitative methods:

1. Complex and uncertain situations can be tackled.

2. They stimulate creative thinking, supported by experts.

3. They do not require quantitative indicators.

Major limitations of qualitative methods:

1. They cannot quantify future situations precisely.

2. They may generate excessively speculative future visions.

3. The quality of the analysis depends on the expert's wisdom.

4. They are not useful for anticipating short-term actions.

Qualitative methods are particularly appropriate when there are no past or

present data, when structural changes are taking place and historical series are

no longer valid, when there is great uncertainty, and when long-term predictions

are required.

For urban planners, any of the above-mentioned methods can be valid for

analytical and forecasting purposes. The choice of the method depends on a

number of factors such as the study’s objectives and scope, forecasting

variables, data reliability, expected precision, time horizon, the technique’s

complexity, its cost, and the time limits. However, if we are working in the

realm of strategic planning, qualitative methods are usually more appropriate for

envisioning the future of the city. In this case, territorial foresight may be of

great help because of its particular approach and attributes.


6

Definition and understanding of territorial foresight

In recent years, the term foresight, prospectiva in Spanish and prospective in

French, has begun to be used widely in many fields to describe a series of

approaches and tools which strive to improve the decision-making ability of

public and private agents to tackle future challenges. Specialised publications

(FOREN, 2001; IPTS, 2001) define foresight as a systematic, participatory

process that generates knowledge about the future and creates medium- and

long-term visions aimed at providing support for present decision-making and

mobilising joint initiatives. Foresight thus not only produces studies about the

future, but also involves the key agents of change and sets up expert networks

for the purpose of formulating strategic viewpoints and configuring anticipatory

intelligence.

Foresight is a relatively new knowledge area, which started to gain momentum

in the United States after the Second World War. Driven by military planning

needs in the 1940s and 50s, foresight studies gradually shifted into the

technological and sociological arena during the 1960s. Europe and Japan then

started to produce their own foresight studies in a continuous and systematic

way. Consequently, nowadays in the foresight field it is possible to differentiate

between the American, European and Japanese schools of thought.1

Since the 1990s, foresight studies have proliferated all over the world due to the

establishment of numerous public and semi-public bodies in charge of

forecasting technological, geopolitical, economic and social trends. Today,

issues relating to climate change, territorial usage, transport and other areas are

the focus of foresight studies. Foresight can thus be applied to any tree of

knowledge in which long-term significant changes occur and for which possible

future alternatives must be assessed.

Focussing specifically on the urban and regional planning field, we can define

territorial foresight as a systematic attempt at long-term observation of the

future of science, technology, the economy and society in order to identify the

emerging trends that can be expected to produce the greatest changes in the city

and the territory (Fernández Güell, 2006). Territorial foresight thus involves the

implementation of the general principles of anticipation, participation,

networking and visions at a small geographic scale in which proximity factors

are decisive.

As with all innovative planning tools, it is important to assess the potential

advantages and disadvantages of territorial foresight prior to its implementation.

Some of the most noteworthy tangible benefits are the following:

1 For more in-depth information about the historical evolution of futures and foresight studies, see Barbieri,

1993.


7

• It builds up plausible, coherent future visions.

• It systematizes the debate about future prospects and desires for socio-

economic development amongst a wide variety of agents in a given

territory.

• It helps to formulate viable, innovative territorial strategies that can

reconcile the viewpoints of a wide range of territorial agents.

• It establishes priorities for future public and private initiatives.

• It forms expert networks to exchange knowledge about the studied

issues.

• It disseminates the knowledge deriving from the foresight exercises

amongst the major territorial agents and political decision-makers.

In contrast to traditional planning processes, which tend to have a limited

sectoral scope for an integrated approach to future challenges, territorial

foresight is based on participation methods in which the public and private

agents’ knowledge is shared to build up a vision of the possible future for a

given territory. Foresight is thus complementary to the established planning

processes, feeding into them new elements and values, empowering the local

agents and providing legitimacy and efficiency to territorial strategies.

In spite of the above-mentioned advantages, territorial foresight has clear

limitations. In the first place, foresight cannot tackle or resolve all the social,

economic, environmental and political problems in a territory. Secondly,

foresight cannot impose consensus where there are deep disagreements between

the major agents in a territory. Thirdly, foresight is not a quick remedy for

urgent problems, since it requires long analyses and the establishment of expert

networks which do not produce immediate results. Finally, foresight demands

certain policies that may be difficult to implement in emerging territorial

institutions with little real power.

Essentially, the aim of territorial foresight is the multidisciplinary resolution or

channelling of complex issues that have been maturing over many years and

must be tackled with substantial work to make society aware about the changes

required for the future. Initially, both metropolitan areas and urban regions

seem to be particularly suitable geographic scales for foresight given that local

agents have an immediate, sensitive perception of the impact of potential future

changes on their territory.


8

Recent examples of territorial foresight

The methods used in territorial foresight are not “new” in the strict sense, as

they have been under development and in practice for several decades, nor are

they replacing the more conventional forms of forecasting and planning.

Nevertheless, their use is gradually spreading and they are increasingly

becoming a decisive part of some planning exercises. This trend is due to the

fact that today's rapid social and technological changes are exerting pressure on

the rational planning systems, whose precision and usefulness require long

periods of relative stability. Foresight methods, on the other hand, work more in

real time and are more agile in capturing the ongoing transformations of a given

environment.

Apart from various national foresight programmes undertaken by some

European governments, the European Union has been supporting several

interesting territorial foresight initiatives. One is the “Practical Guide to

Regional Foresight”, drafted by the Foresight for Regional Development

Network (FOREN, 2001), financed by the European Commission under the

STRATA Programme. This Guide describes various foresight exercises

undertaken during the 1990s in several regions.2 The FOREN Guide includes an

introduction to basic foresight concepts and takes a practical approach to

implementing regional foresight.

A second group of initiatives has been carried out by the Institute for

Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS)3. The IPTS is a public body under the

auspices of the European Commission, which provides strategic support for the

development of EU policies regarding technology, economy and society. Since

the mid 1990s, the IPTS has been committed to producing different types of

foresight studies at the national level, but more recently it has broadened these

studies to the regional level. According to the IPTS staff (Gavigan and Scapolo,

2001), there are ample opportunities to apply foresight at the regional scale,

which will probably stimulate the development of different tools to the ones

used at the national level.

The third experience was conducted by the European Spatial Planning

Observation Network (ESPON)4, a public organisation established in 2000

under the European Commission's Interreg III Programme. Its central aim is to

build up a scientific community in the European Union that can support urban

2 The FOREN Guide included nine case studies: West Midlands (UK), Catalonia (Spain), Uusimaa (Finland),

Limousin (France), Province of Liege (Belgium), Nord-Pas de Calais (France) Lombardy (Italy), Baltic String

(Denmark, Sweden and Germany), and North-East England (UK). 3 The Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), created in 1994, is presently located in Seville,

Spain. It is one of the seven scientific institutes of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC). 4 The European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON) is located in Luxembourg. It is a network of

observatories from 27 European countries.


9

development policies and promote territorial planning. In 2007, ESPON

produced “Spatial scenarios for Europe”, which contemplated three alternative

European scenarios for the 2030 horizon. The major objective of this foresight

study was to investigate the likely territorial impact of socio-economic and

environmental challenges on the territorial structure and balance of Europe.

In Spain, there have been three recent foresight exercises in which the present

author has been involved directly. In the first one, “Scenario design for social

behaviour regarding sustainable development”5, three scenarios were developed

to foresee potential territorial impacts of changing social attitudes toward the

concept and practice of sustainable development on the 2025 horizon. Scenario

implications were defined for social, economic, territorial and governance

models in Spain. Nearly 30 experts were interviewed and invited to participate

in several focus groups.

A second foresight study was undertaken in 2006-2007 as part of a larger

research project focussed on the sustainability of the Madrid Region6. At that

time, Madrid was a highly complex, extended and dynamic metropolis, which

was becoming one of the leading urban centres on the European continent.

However, reasonable doubts were raised about the long-term sustainability of its

development model. Within these premises, this foresight exercise aimed to

outline a trend scenario for the Madrid Region in 2025 in order to evaluate the

sustainability of the present development model when extrapolated into the

future. Several personal interviews were conducted with regional and local

planning agents from the public and private sectors.

Finally, a third foresight experience has been performed at the beginning of

2009 in Burgos, a city in Spain's north-western Castilla y León Region.7 Burgos

has almost 200,000 inhabitants and it has been a thriving industrial and logistics

centre for the last 20 years. Given the present economic recession and the

emergence of new challenges, Burgos decided to review its strategic plan and

evaluate its competitive position. With this purpose, a foresight exercise has

been carried out to foresee alternative development scenarios for the 2015

horizon. Scenario implications were defined in eight city areas: social fabric,

education systems, industrial sectors, service sectors, transport systems, housing

and community facilities, urban and regional planning, public services and urban

5 This study was carried out in 2007 by Fundación OPTI, a Spanish non-profit organisation under the Ministry of

Industry, (which is fully dedicated to make) devoted to technological and socio-economic foresight studies. 6 This research project was financed by a joint grant from the Madrid Regional Government and the Madrid

Polytechnic University (UPM) awarded to the UPM’s Sustainable Architecture and Urbanism Research Group

(GIAU+S). 7 This project was financed by the Asociación Plan Estratégico Ciudad de Burgos, a non-profit association

responsible for managing the strategic plan, composed of more than 60 public, private and non-profit

organisations in the city.


10

governance. More than 50 local experts participated in eight thematic expert

panels.

Adapting foresight methods to urban planning needs

While foresight is being widely used in the realm of economic and technology

policy, this set of qualitative tools is seldom applied in urban and regional

planning. Novelty, ignorance or lack of professional interest may partially

explain this situation, but there may also be several shortcomings related to

methods, analytical tools and processes which hinder the full development of

territorial foresight.

The potential application of territorial foresight as a key analytical tool for the

reinforcement of urban planning processes was a central issue in all three

Spanish experiences. Results and lessons from the three exercises have

provided interesting insights into the advantages and disadvantages of adapting

foresight methods to an urban context. These findings are synthesised in a

working methodology, which is presented below.

Urban planners who wish to use foresight techniques in a city context must first

choose the most appropriate method. As a general rule, most of today's large

and medium sized cities operate in complex and dynamic territorial contexts,

and they are subject to high uncertainties. If we are supposed to formulate long-

range development strategies in this type of urban context, then the chosen

foresight method should satisfy the following features:

• Qualitative. A qualitative method should facilitate the analysis of all

types of change trends, including issues for which we lack quantitative

indicators, thus making the analysis more flexible and creative.

• Causal. A causal method should analyse urban changes resulting from

the effect of certain causes, which might or might not be controlled by

the social and economic agents operating in the territory.

• Systemic. In line with the above feature, and also in response to the

complexity of the problem, the method should use a systematic

approach in which interrelations between the components of the

territorial system would be sought.

• Exploratory. In contrast to regulatory methods, which begin with a

preliminary vision of a desirable future and move backwards towards

the present situation, an exploratory method should be chosen to

enable us to look towards the future.


11

• Participatory. Since the chosen method is a qualitative technique

based on expert judgement, solid participation involving local agents

will be necessary to support the research findings.

Amongst the foresight tools that may match the former attributes, scenario

design seems to be an attractive, effective approach for formulating urban

visions and strategies. The validity of scenario design, a technique used widely

for almost 50 years, has been documented by several authors (Godet, 2001;

Heijden, 1996; Schwartz, 1991). Scenario design may be defined as a tool for

arranging perceptions of the future and thus help to shape an outlook with a

perspective in a world of great uncertainty (Fernández Güell, 2004). This

foresight technique is eminently qualitative, it combines intuition and rational

analysis, and it usually requires the collaboration of a group of experts. For

most foresight practitioners, scenario development is the archetypal product of

future studies because it is deeply creative and can handle uncertainty.

Presentation of the scenario methodology

The chosen scenario method was organised sequentially in four steps (see

Figure 2): (1) functional characterisation of the city; (2) identification and

assessment of change factors; (3) (building) scenario building and development;

and (4) definition of scenario implications for the city. This approach obviously

had to rely on an ongoing process of participation and evaluation by public and

private agents operating in the analysed territory.

Definition of

scenario implicationsfor the city

Futurescenario building

and development

Identification and assessment of change factors

Functional characterisation

of the city

Participation, communication and feedback

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

F igure 2: Scenario des ign methodology


12

The method is explained briefly below, with a discussion of the main lessons

learned.

Step 1: Functional characterisation of the city. The method’s first task is to

gain a broad understanding of the physical, economic and social models which

have guided recent urban development. Each characterisation model unfolds

into a number of topics (see Figure 3), which should be properly covered so as

to understand the development process of the analysed city. The recommended

tools for this step are mainly research of secondary sources and interviews with

city experts.

Lessons learned from Step 1. A functional system that explains the mechanics

of a city is usually regarded as a good approach for dealing with highly complex

issues. It helps the analyst to integrate thematic trends into urban development,

it facilitates expert panels, and it helps participants in the foresight exercise to

focus on specific analysis.

If mathematical models are to be used in the foresight exercise, then functional

relations amongst the three development models should be quantified in this

step. Nevertheless, beware that mathematical algorithms are time-consuming

and are made up of static components; on the contrary, cities tend to change in

unpredictable and unforeseeable ways.

Step 2: Identification and assessment of the change factors. The method’s

second step pursues the identification of change factors that can have significant

effects on the future city’s development. This analysis should be undertaken by

Physical Model• Geographic location• External connections

• Position in urban system• Urban morphology

• Urban planning

City

Economic Model• Historical evolution

• Local economic structure• Economic specialisation• Competitiveness level

• Economic infrastructures

Social Model• Population

• Demographic indicators• Migration movements

• Social exclusion• Quality of life

F igure 3: Functional characterisation of the city


13

expert panels organised by thematic areas. These panels are to identify and

assess the main change trends using group dynamics techniques in which

consensus are sought within their group.

This task’s central goal is to identify the largest possible number of relevant

geopolitical, demographic, cultural, economic, technological and governance

trends that may affect the city. Once the trends are identified, they must be

evaluated according to the impact-uncertainty matrix (see Figure 4).

In this matrix, three major positions are clearly identified:

• Position A: Uncertain trends (critical uncertainties). Trends with

high-medium levels of impact and uncertainty. Trends located in this

position foster alternative scenarios because they represent critical

uncertainties about the city’s future.

• Position B: Certain trends. Trends with high-medium impact levels,

but low uncertainty levels. These type of trends foster inertial

scenarios because there is little doubt about their occurrence.

• Position C: Irrelevant trends. Trends with low impact on the city.

Regardless of their uncertainty level, these trends are irrelevant to the

scenario building process.

This methodological step is critical for obtaining solid, plausible foresight

results. For this reason, special attention is paid for adequately documenting

trends in a form that can be evaluated, reproduced and used by others.

Low High

UNCERTAINTY LEVELIM

PA

CT

LE

VE

L

Lo

wH

igh Target position for

scenario design

� High impact

� High uncertainty

Position AUncertain Trends

(critical uncertainties)

MediumM

ed

ium

F igure 4: Impact-uncertainty matrix

Position CIrrelevant Trends

Position BCertain Trends


14

Lessons learned from Step 2. As a general rule, experts have little problem in

identifying change trends and evaluating their impact levels; however,

difficulties tend to arise when they are asked to assess the degree of uncertainty.

This is because most decision-makers feel uneasy about projecting present

events into a long time horizon and tend to confuse present certainties with

future uncertainties. At this point, active intervention by the research team is

required to clarify concepts among participants. Overall, the so-called “impact-

uncertainty matrix” is extremely useful for focusing debate and presenting

analysis results.

Additional tools can be used in this step to increase the method’s sophistication.

First, a Delphi Study8 can be carried out among a broad range of experts to

identify and evaluate urban change factors. The major drawback of this method

is that it is expensive and time consuming. Second, multivariate statistical

analysis9 may help to cluster change factors to detect synergies, however, this

analysis requires reliable and homogeneous historical databases, which is

difficult to get in the urban realm. Third, using a cross-impact matrix10

can

bring to light interactions among change factors and therefore an estimate of

their likelihood. However, given the complexity of the subject matter, it is

usually impossible to validly determine the impact of all change factors on the

others.

Step 3: Future scenario building and development. The third step focuses on

the construction and development of various scenarios which represent, in a

consistent and plausible form, alternative futures in which a city may operate in

the defined time horizon. Scenarios are built on the basis of the major forces for

change that may affect a city. These forces are usually articulated around two

axes, which give rise to four distinct scenarios.

Figure 5 shows two scenario axes chosen for a fictitious city:

• Vertical axis: Evolution of the socio-economic context in which a city

operates. This axis encompasses all future uncertainties relating to the

demographic structures, the economic model, and the emergence of

technological innovations.

8 A Delphi Study is a foresight method that strives to gain systematic and quantified consensus on a complex

issue amongst a large number of experts. 9 The purpose of multivariate statistical analysis is to understand the underlying structure of multiple variables,

and to combine them in homogeneous groups in order to form new variables. 10

A cross-impact matrix is a square matrix in which each change factor has been assigned a row and a column.

The matrix cells are filled with the impacts of one trend (the row) on another (the column). A cross-impact

analysis calculates the probabilities of alternative options based on rigorous mathematical procedures.


15

• Horizontal axis: Evolution of local agents’ behaviour. This axis

includes the level of local entrepreneurship, the openness of local

society, local lifestyles, and dominant socio-cultural patterns.

In a full-scale foresight exercise, scenarios are fleshed out in literary form,

describing in detail the economic, social, technological and environmental

context in which they operate. A brief explanation of the example’s scenarios

follows.

• Scenario A: Urban Renaissance. The city evolves in a very dynamic

socio-economic context, generating profound urban transformations,

which are assumed by highly innovative local agents. The result is a

very dynamic city, which tends to exceed its growth pattern and is able

to (take advantage of) grasp development opportunities.

• Scenario B: Taking Positions. In this scenario, the city operates in a

slow socio-economic context, but local agents are highly innovative

and entrepreneurial. Since local agents cannot fulfil their expectations

due to unfavourable conditions, they prepare themselves for the next

upturn and try to reinvent the city.

• Scenario C: Missing the Train. The city enjoys a very dynamic socio-

economic context, but local agents show conservative attitudes and

lack an entrepreneurial spirit. Consequently, the city lags behind its

competitors because local decision-makers do not wish to undertake

profound urban transformations.

Scenario A

Urban Renaissance

Innovative local agents

Dynamic socio-economic context

Slow socio-economic context

Conservative local agents

F igure 5: Building scenarios

Scenario C

Missing the Train

Scenario D

Urban Decline

Scenario B

Taking Positions


16

• Scenario D: Urban Decline. This a typical pessimistic scenario in

which the socio-economic context is unfavourable and local agents are

unable to respond to urban challenges. In this case, the city may

stagnate or enter an irreversible decline.

Note that scenarios should not be used as an exact prediction of what is going to

happen in the future. On the contrary, they simply depict exploratory hypotheses

about what may occur in the study time frame.

Lessons learned from Step 3: The presentation of fully fleshed-out scenarios is

usually well received by most local business and political decision-makers.

Media professionals and informed citizens also enjoy the literary outcome of

this foresight exercise. On the other hand, agents from universities and urban

planning departments tend to be more critical of the results when they perceive

that scenarios are too general and miss quantitative and graphical support. In

fact, scenarios can be fleshed-out to any degree, including numerical and

graphic analysis, depending on the availability of time and economic resources.

In any case, most local agents recognise the great potential of the scenario

technique for communicating findings from sophisticated analysis to the general

public.

Step 4: Definition of scenario implications for the city. In the method’s last

step, the potential implications of each scenario are defined for the city’s social

fabric, economic base, environmental system, and governance model. During

this stage, personal interviews with local decision-makers and expert panels

should be held in order to define and contrast the scenario implications.

Figure 6 shows some issues in which scenario implications should be explored.

Brief hints are provided on the implications of each scenario in our fictitious

example.

• Implications of Scenario A (Urban Renaissance). The city will grasp

development opportunities using its broad-ranging capacities and

resources. Local society will be able to attract a wide variety of social

and cultural profiles. The economic base will be innovative and

entrepreneurial because of its exposure to rapid changes and fierce

competition. Quality of life will be high in order to retain

professionals and business. The city will have an advanced governance

model.

• Implications of Scenario B (Taking Positions). Despite the economic

downturn, in this scenario the city has highly capable human resources

and significant social capital. The economic model will undergo a

profound re-engineering process to improve its competitiveness.


17

Public services will guarantee population basic needs. Local

governance will be conducted by strong participatory processes.

• Implications of Scenario C (Missing the Train). Conservative attitudes

at the local level will retard socio-economic development initiatives.

Local society will be rather homogeneous and find it difficult to attract

highly specialised professionals. Quality of life will be measured by

consumption levels, and public services will be restricted and

outsourced to the private sector. The economic base will rely on

traditional, mature sectors, (being highly exposed) vulnerable to swift

changes. Local participation processes will be scarce and purely

cosmetic.

• Implications of Scenario D (Urban Decline). In this context, the city

will lack the resources required to overcome the crisis and grasp

development opportunities. Local society will react against cultural

diversity, shutting itself off to new ideas and lifestyles. The local

economy will weaken and unemployment will rise.

In a full-scale foresight exercise, this analysis is obviously deeper and reinforced

with all kinds of indicators.

Lessons learned from Step 4: Decision-makers sometimes find it hard to define implications for future scenarios because they do not immediately foresee how

the broad future context will affect their daily operations. To overcome this

Sustainability• Energy efficiency• Pollution levels

• Sustainable mobility• Water and waste management

• Natural areas conservation• Other issues

City Scenarios

F igure 6: Scenario implications for the city

Quality of life• Provision of social housing

• Availability of community facilities• Cultural and recreational services

• Quality of social services• Urban design quality

• Other issues

Governance• Public participation

• Public-private co-operation• Intergovernmental co-ordination

• Third Sector intervention• Administrative streamlining

• Other issues

Competitiveness• Urban economic model

• Local economic structure• Business innovation• Labour qualification

• Productivity • Other issues


18

problem, the territorial functional system created in Step 1 is of great help

because it structures the questionnaire and focuses the interviewee on critical

issues. Compared to other foresight studies that plainly display change factors

and scenarios, this step provides additional value to the final output.

Some support tools may be of great help in determining implications during the

interviews process. Geographical Information Systems and other graphic tools

can be very useful for showing the spatial implications of socio-economic

trends. Likewise, the application of simple quantitative models can strengthen

the explanation of certain territorial processes. In brief, implication analysis

may be the right step to make use of software in shaping scenarios.

Main findings

This paper presents a territorial foresight method based on scenario design. This

method has been recently applied in Spain in three foresight studies conducted

by the author at the national, regional and local levels. While limited, this

sample of studies provides interesting findings about the potential and feasibility

of foresight tools for the urban and regional planning practice.

Firstly, a qualitative and process-oriented foresight method was designed for

urban and broader territorial contexts. The method is user-friendly for regional

and local decision-makers and quite manageable for technicians. Although the

process-oriented approach is emphasised, the method generates a tangible

product –a set of scenarios–, which people can easily refer to and understand.

The exercise takes between six to eight months to complete, a reasonable time

frame considering the public agents' expectations and economic constraints.

Secondly, the three exercises verified that foresight can provide valuable,

specific contributions to the strategic planning process in cities and regions. As a

matter of fact, foresight is fairly complementary to strategic planning because it

stimulates participation, generates future scenarios, emphasises strategic models

over tactical actions, identifies territorial challenges, fosters on-going indicative

planning versus normative planning, and is not restricted by political-

administrative boundaries.

Thirdly, the method’s acceptance by regional and local agents tends to differ, as

mentioned in Step 4. Foresight is particularly welcomed by agents familiarised

with strategic planning, while it is regarded with more disdain by traditional

urban planners. This finding may reflect planners' greater comfort with

projections for specific issues such as traffic generation, population growth and

housing demand than the design of a broad, elusive future.


19

Fourthly, most participants perceive foresight as an interesting input to help

decision-making in the spatial planning process. However, in order to

effectively foster policy decisions, foresight must be properly incorporated into

the planning process, which is not yet the case in Spain. Overall, there seems to

be consensus in the recognition of foresight as a powerful tool for territorial

knowledge dissemination and the establishment of expert networks, which

altogether could help to improve a territory’s governance.

Fifthly, a series of shortcomings are detected, several improvements for which

are suggested in this paper. Quantitative and graphic tools should be included to

reinforce and clarify the analysis. More information about the generation of

change factors is required. Early warning indicators to predict a change should

be established. More accurate impact assessment of socio-economic phenomena

in territorial systems is needed.

The proposed method could obviously be further enriched by adding more

elaborate processes and techniques, but we should not be obsessed with

technical sophistication11

. Accurate data compilation and careful scenario

creation are more important for forecasting success than the implementation of

complex mathematical models. Quantitative analysis can lend coherence and

credibility to scenario exercises, but modelling tools should support that process,

not drive it. Despite its evident shortcomings, a foresight method like the one

proposed here should not loose its eminently qualitative nature.

Therefore, two major questions remain to be answered by future research and

professional practice. To what extent and at what cost can additional

sophistication provide additional value to foresight methods? Can local and

regional governments afford to build strong databases to support territorial

foresight?

Finally, there are motives for thinking optimistically that Spain and most other

European countries have reached sufficient maturity to apply territorial

foresight. Firstly, national and international bodies with authority in sectoral and

territorial planning issues are increasingly involved in foresight demonstration

projects. Secondly, European countries already have a large corpus of innovative

planning experiences, such as strategic plans and Agenda 21. Thirdly, there is

an obvious growing demand by the average citizen for improvements to the

current governance models through participation processes, inter-government

co-ordination and public-private co-operation. Fourthly, we have spent over

11

Craig et al. (2002) make a series of interesting observations about the successful application of forecast

methods, which can be extrapolated to territorial foresight: (1) document assumptions; (2) link the model design

to the decision at hand; (3) beware of obsession with technical sophistication; (4) watch out for discontinuities

and irreversibility; (5) do not assume fixed laws of human behaviour; (6) use scenarios; (7) use combined

approaches; (8) expect the unexpected and design for uncertainty; (9) communicate effectively; (10) be modest.


20

three decades moving in a highly dynamic context in which one change quickly

overtakes another, and sometimes these transformations cause significant

breakdowns in the established order.

Nevertheless, before being fully accepted in the planning field, foresight must

first overcome a number of challenges: improved rigour in its methods and

analytical tools to gain more credibility with decision-makers; refined

participatory processes to facilitate its full integration into the planning process;

and inclusion in the strategic planning process in order to have a friendly

operational framework. Eventually, foresight will arouse less technical

scepticism.

Bibliographic references

Armstrong, J. S. (2001) Principles of Forecasting, New York: Springer.

Barbieri, E. (1993) La previsión humana y social, México: Fondo de Cultura

Económica.

Craig, P. P.; Gadgik, A.; & Koomey, J. G. (2002) What can history teach us? A

retrospective examination of long-term energy forecasts for the United

States, Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 27, pp. 83-118

European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON) (2007) Scenarios on

the territorial future of Europe, Belgium: ESPON.

Fernández Güell, J. M. (2006) Planificación estratégica de ciudades, nuevos

instrumentos y procesos, Barcelona: Editorial Reverté.

Fernández Güell, J. M. (2004) El diseño de escenarios en el ámbito

empresarial, Madrid: Editorial Pirámide.

Foresight for Regional Development Network (FOREN) (2001) Practical Guide

to Regional Foresight, Sevilla: Institute for Prospective Technological

Studies (IPTS).

Fundación OPTI (2007) Estudio de prospectiva sobre el comportamiento social

ante el desarrollo sostenible, Madrid: Fundación OPTI.

Gavigan, J. P.; Scapolo, F. (2001) La prospectiva y la visión del desarrollo

regional a largo plazo, The IPTS Report, 56, pp. 22-33.

Godet, M. (2001) Creating Futures – Scenario Planning as a Strategic

Management Tool, London: Economica.

Heijden, K. van der (1996) Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation,

London: Wiley.


21

Isserman, A. M. (1985) Dare to plan: An essay on the role of the future in

planning practice and education, Town Planning Review 56 (4) pp. 483-

491.

Jantsch, E. (1967) Technological Forecasting in Perspective, Paris: OCDE.

Schwartz, P. (1991) The Art of the Long View, New York: Doubleday Currency.

The IPTS Report, Nº 59, November (2001). Special Issue: Foresight and

Regional Development.

Wachs, M. (2001) Forecasting versus Envisioning: A new window on the future,

American Planning Association Journal, 67 (4), pp. 367-372.

CAN FORESIGHT STUDIES STRENGTHEN STRATEGIC …...CAN FORESIGHT STUDIES STRENGTHEN STRATEGIC PLANNING...

Documents

Transcript of CAN FORESIGHT STUDIES STRENGTHEN STRATEGIC …...CAN FORESIGHT STUDIES STRENGTHEN STRATEGIC PLANNING...